Typical shares by building type
| Block | Residential | Commercial | Industrial |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structure and building works | 40 - 45% | 30 - 35% | 45 - 55% |
| Envelope | 15 - 20% | 15 - 20% | 15 - 25% |
| Services | 20 - 25% | 35 - 45% | 20 - 30% |
| Finishes | 20 - 25% | 15 - 20% | 5 - 10% |
The three columns tell three different economic stories. In residential the cost is relatively balanced, with finishes and services together weighing almost half. In commercial the services dominate: climate control, ventilation, electrical, data and security make the office building a machine. In industrial the structure returns to the lead and finishes almost disappear, while services vary enormously with intended use.
How the breakdown has changed
The interesting datum is not the snapshot but the movement. Over the last two decades the breakdown has shifted systematically: traditional building works weigh proportionally less, services and envelope much more.
The reasons are regulatory and technological. Energy performance requirements turned the envelope into a technical system (insulation systems, performing windows, thermal bridge correction) and introduced services previously absent from current residential work: mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, heat pumps, photovoltaic generation, control systems. In commercial work, the technology component (data, security, audiovisual, automation) has grown to exceed 40 per cent of fit-out budgets.
The practical consequence for anyone estimating: historic shares are misleading. A residential quote with services at 12 per cent of the total most likely describes a minimum-performance building, not a bargain.
How to use the shares to check a quote
The check takes five minutes and spots imbalances before any detailed analysis. The method. The method compares the shares in the quote with the typical ones.
First, reclassify. Group the quote's items into the four blocks (structure and building works, envelope, services, finishes) and calculate the percentages of the total.
Second, compare with the table. A deviation of a few points is normal and reflects design choices; a deviation of ten points or more is a signal that calls for explanation.
Third, interpret the imbalance. Services below the band: reduced performance, or missing items (often ventilation, controls, rough-ins). Finishes above the band: a declared high level, or unit prices inflated on the most visible packages. Structure above the band: costly foundations for ground or seismic reasons, or over-design. Envelope below the band: energy efficiency sacrificed, the item you pay for over decades.
Fourth, ask. Every imbalance may have a legitimate explanation: the point is not to contest but to understand what is being bought.
An example reading
A quote for a 130 m2 house, total EUR 234,000 (EUR 1,800 per m2). Comparing shares makes the divergence visible.
| Block | Amount in the quote | Share | Expected band | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structure and building works | EUR 112,000 | 48% | 40 - 45% | Above: check foundations and seismic design |
| Envelope | EUR 28,000 | 12% | 15 - 20% | Below: energy performance to be verified |
| Services | EUR 44,000 | 19% | 20 - 25% | At the lower limit |
| Finishes | EUR 50,000 | 21% | 20 - 25% | Within band |
The reading is immediate and useful: this quote is coherent on the total but unbalanced in composition, with a weak envelope and heavy structure. Two questions follow: are the foundations justified by a geological report, and what energy performance does the proposed envelope achieve? The answer changes the value of what is bought, at the same price per m2.
Note: the shares shown are typical 2026 values for guidance only. Every project has its own cost composition, to be read on its specific bill of quantities.